ArticleJournal of community health2022
A Cross-Sectional Study of Disparities in Screening Guideline Concordance Within a Student-Run Clinic.
Article in Journal of community health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural Racism in Cervical Cancer Care and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Inequities and Barriers.Current epidemiology reports · 2025Review
- Results of Leveraging Pharmaceutical Patient Assistance Programs to Expand Access to High Cost Medications in a Student-Run Free Clinic.Journal of community health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Examination of screening guideline concordance can help clinics and institutions identify and understand disparities within their own practices. We conducted a study to examine whether screening completion rates within a student-run free clinic (SRFC) reflected, exacerbated, or narrowed population-level disparities in outcomes by race/ethnicity and primary language. We compared completion rates for cervical cancer (n = 114), diabetic retinopathy (n = 91), colorectal cancer (n = 114), and breast cancer (n = 63) by race/ethnicity (Black, n = 37; Hispanic, n = 133; white, n = 54; other, n = 29) and primary language (English, n = 106; Spanish, n = 136; other, n = 11) among patients at Shade tree clinic (STC), an SFRC in Nashville, TN. There were no differences in screening completion rate by race/ethnicity, and Spanish-speaking patients had slightly higher rates of cervical cancer screening [91% (95% confidence interval 84-97%)] than English-speaking patients [72% (57-86%)]. Overall screening rates were comparable to national averages, and in the case of screenings performed within clinic-cervical cancer [82%; (75-89%)] and diabetic retinopathy screening [86% (79-92%)]-exceeded national averages and/or affiliated academic medical center goals. These findings extend the existing literature supporting the ability of SRFCs to provide effective care by also demonstrating one measure of equity in clinic processes, providing a framework for future studies of equity within SRFCs and traditional primary care practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.